You are on page 1of 4

As humans we have the opportunity to have a consciousness with rationality and logic.

We are able to create meaning and from that symbols, numbers, words, images, and the development of society. With our abilities we create logic systems and meaning systems, and with this we end up able to create paradoxes. One of the simplest examples is the paradox, this sentence is a lie. Part of the power of logic is being able to have contradictions, and things dont make sense. This should be something understood by everyone. Now why do we seem to feel that every question has to have an answer? Just as we can create logical paradoxes, can we create questions that are undeterminable? For example there are questions that are not falsifiable such as: Is there a God? Does life have a meaning? Is there Fate? Etc. All of these questions are created outside the observed world in our own minds as ideas or theories (I feel this has been established by what science and history tell us), thus they will have no proof in the observed world. We cannot seem to understand what is unknowable, as we seem to have this knack of asking the unanswerable. Even if this universe is part of trillions of other universes, people could still ask where God is. Even if some ultra-powerful being said he was God and convinced most people, he could be lying. As shown with logical paradoxes and untestable theories (at this point in time) we cant know certain things; it is just the nature of our brain and systems of understanding (we created language, morals, religion, all of it; and since we are subject to our own possibility of error, then we cant absolutely know anything for certain). Why not focus on what can be answered? Why debate about God still, when we obviously cant get anywhere. Sure, the thought has influenced almost every single philosopher, but that does not mean we need as we have it now. But it shouldnt be thrown away. It should still be looked at, everything should be. We should be as open-minded as possible and observe, question and reason through every single thing. Instead of asking is there a God? Ask: What most likely made the universe? Where are we in the universe? Can there be a God? What does it mean to be God in this case? Can there not be a God? Should there be a God? Does it matter if there is one? What can science tell us about the theory of God? Should we base our morals off of religion? Is religion right or wrong? If religion is wrong, do we need morals? If yes, what should they be? Would our morals affect the universe, or a God? Why should we follow morals? Are morals the only dictator of the righteous life? Do morals include all that is good, or are morals just good and bad based on social interaction? (This can include animals or just interacting with oneself). Is developing understanding, knowledge and science automatically good? Or does the possibility of being used for bad intentions make it unverifiable until the intention is known or the action is complete? There is a middle ground, a sort of neutrality. One can be said to do research because one has the desire to know more. This means that one is doing a pseudo-selfish act (but not intentionally good or bad) with unknown outcomes that could also be good or bad. This action of discovering answers and truth would most likely be called good by most people, but it doesnt completely fit in with Kantianism or utilitarianism. There are other moralities for one to choose from, more along the lines of being influenced by a single philosopher like Nietzsche, but the most used seem to be those two, aside from religious morals. There is more to morality than is viewed by most people. We dont have to be good, or good all the time, or never doing bad, or never neutral. Even if one believes in a universal morality or objective morality is that actually going to stop one from lying or cheating or doing something bad ever?

This may be ideal, but it is silly to think it is the case. We are people that make our own choices, and sometimes those choices may not be the best. We should know this, and embrace this. Morality is extremely subjective in that it is entirely upon the individuals interpretations and feelings towards a completely unique and specific circumstance. Just as there are no answers for certain questions, and no solutions to certain logical paradoxes, there is no universal truth of morality. This statement defies thousands of years of thought and philosophers. However, I feel at this time, when it is understood how different and varied everyone, and their circumstances are, that we can say that morality is subject both to the specific situation and the particular people within it. (There has been basically a century of philosophers from Nietzsche to existentialist, showing and telling us that morality and meaning are subjective, there are no universals and we create all those ourselves). Morality should be applied and almost always is applied, since we make moral decisions daily. We use our reason and unfortunately our moral beliefs in our conscious life to make decisions. I say unfortunately because we should never let something outside of our situation be able to judge it. Universals can be a simple guideline to choose the right answer a fair amount of the time. They all say dont kill basically, so that is a good idea, but we should come to that conclusion based on our reason. If you look at the rules of any universal you come to find that you can either use your reason to come to the same conclusion or you use your reason to see a situation where the rules are unreasonable. The more intelligent people dont just blindly agree with their beliefs, (just think of how crazy the beliefs of our ancestors were- we all know it). When utilitarianism tells you that the happiness of the minority will lose in the favor of the happiness of the majority, you should be using your reason to know that more should be considered. What are each happy about? Why will that make them happy? Should they be happy about that? Does their happiness inhibit others happiness; and how does it affect others? Which happiness is the better happiness? What if the situation is bad either way? What if they are equally good? That is a little too much to examine, but it can be seen with just some simple thought examples that you can have some really uncertain results. The same is true for thinking only about intentions. There is so much more than ones intentions, there are everyones intentions and there are the effects of those intentions. There are intentions that do the opposite, and there are intentions that dont do anything. Why do our intentions have to be good? Why would the consequences not matter? If we look at our own intentions and others, shouldnt we compare our own to others and how they interact and affect one another? Additionally Kant tells us lying is bad, no matter the circumstance. This can all instantly be seen as being wrong in many circumstances. Why follows these if thats the case? Why not improve them? Adjust? Alter? Recreate? Reinvent? Or just pick a whole new one based on the knowledge that we gained from these universals and from our own reasoning. Our reasoning can always help us determine what the most optimal decision is when confronted with moral dilemmas. These systems have told us things that are important to consider when judging a person or an action, but there is much more ground to be covered; we definitely dont want to just be confined by these few views.

Where are we in the universe? On a very small clump of matter that orbits a tiny star, in a fairly small and one of over 300 billion galaxies. We are these miniscule bodies with consciousness all interacting and manipulating and creating on this small little clump of matter. We are inside these bodies, specifically one body. This is our place. We will forever be inside our own bodies, until someone creates some awesome technology for brains in vats and such. When you think of where you actually are, there is so much more space than you would have ever imagined. All unexplored and unknown space+ universes space+ the space on every planet, within every crevice of matter on all of those planets+ the space encompassing ever atomic and molecular orbital+ all that space inside our heads, including all the information recorded from our heads (books, internet, etc.) That is a lot of fucking space. We are at this small little focal point which we call thought, which is inside of our entire consciousness (perception, identity/self, memories, emotions, etc.) We should make it a habit of tidying up and maintaining the closest space to us, in my personal opinion. I reject the notion that people in Africa deserve my attention and care as much as any person. They deserve attention, but it does not need to be mine. The ones I love, the people close to me, and of course myself, are the ones I will care for the most. Why wouldnt I care for them more? Caring for them creates good for me. I get to interact with them, be with them, love them, and experience the world and my life along with them. And of course I am more attached to my own thoughts and mind than I am to some Asian child. It is the same for all of us, no matter how much we may not want it to be. No one is going to be completely and perfectly good (these utopian ideals are thought of as childish or just as idealistic within the realm of government and other areas in life; why not here too?). Since we will not be perfect, might as well be as good as possible in the way you want to be. I will be good to myself, my loved ones, and automatically nice and respectful to all others, unless given reason to not be. Take care of this close space, the easy to reach space, and the space that you can understand the best. This includes the space in your mind and body though. Keeping yourself healthy, logical, open minded and understanding will only produce benefits and all without having to help people that are starving. Some may say it is not good enough, but you dont have to care about what those people think. Doesnt it make sense to take care of the space that you can best take care of? What does it mean to be God in this case? I like to think of God as the creator of the universe, a much higher power, but thats it. The God doesnt have to be good, bad, all powerful, all knowing, some being watching us, or controlling us, or even comprehendible by us in the least. God is just a sentience that created the universe. Can there not be a God? With the way the evidence is unfolding, it certainly seems this way. Should there be a God? There does not have to be anything; why is there anything at all? Does any of it matter? We could never say for sure, it is all just our own opinion and belief. Does it matter if there is one? Probably not, but if there is one then there may be the need for a God.

What can science tell us about the theory of God? It tells us that if there is a God, that God established the universe based on certain laws. It tells us that God has to be higher developed than us, and most likely much more so. God would also be beyond our three dimensions. Should we base our morals off of religion? No, as stated above, we should base our morals off of reason. Religion is very against reason in many cases. Is religion right or wrong? It is neither. Religion can bring both good and bad outcomes (unfortunately due to the unreasonable there have been many bad outcomes), but if one uses their reasoning they can easily believe in a religion, or certain views of one without being bad or anything of the sort. If religion is wrong, do we need morals? We need morality in the sense that we need a planet. A society is dependent on construct of some sort, and that means there will be rules. There will be certain ways to do things that are better than other things. However, we do not need religious morals or any specific code. If yes, what should they be? To produce the best possible outcomes, this comes by having the best possible reasoning abilities. We will never be able to have the absolute best of either, but the closer we get to the best reasoning, the better outcomes we will have. (Is that not the most basic moral code?) Would our morals affect the universe, or a God? When you think about how small we are, it makes you wonder if it even makes sense for our daily life choices to bother the being that created this entire space. Why should we follow morals? We do not have to follow our morals, but doing so can lead to better outcomes if using good reasoning. Some morals shouldnt be followed (oppressing women), but others should (dont oppress women). Are morals the only dictator of the righteous life? I feel what is good is truth, scientific development, creativity and artistic creation, curiosity, authenticity, rationality/reason/logic, empathy/love/caring (when used logically) and the good within ourselves (feelings, desires, understandings, meanings, wishes, etc. what is good for each of us individually).